Tag Archives: z13

Post navigation

In the same timeframe as the recent IBM z14 and LinuxONE Enhanced Driver Maintenance (GA2) hardware announcements, there were modifications to the Container Pricing for IBM Z mechanism, namely Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC) and the Application Development and Test Solution. Neither of these new pricing models are dependent on the IBM z14 GA2 hardware announcement, but do require the latest IBM z13, IBM z13s, IBM z14 or IBM z14 ZR1 servers and z/OS V2.2 and upwards for collocated workloads and z/OS V2.1 and upwards for separate LPAR workloads.

For many years, IBM themselves have attempted to introduce new sub-capacity software pricing models to encourage new workloads to the IBM Z server and associated z/OS operating system. Some iterations include z Systems New Application License Charges (zNALC), Integrated Workload Pricing (IWP) and z Systems Collocated Application Pricing (zCAP), naming but a few. The latest iteration appears to be Container Pricing for IBM Z, announced in July 2017, with three options, namely the aforementioned Application Development and Test Solution, the New Application Solution and Payments Pricing Solution. This recent October 2018 announcement adapts the New Application Solution option, classifying it as the Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC) mechanism. For the purposes of this blog, we will concentrate on the SCLC mechanism, although the potential benefits of the Application Development and Test Solution for non-Production workloads should not be under estimated…

From a big picture viewpoint, z/OS, CICS, Db2, IMS and MQ are the most expensive IBM Z software products and of course, IBM Mainframe users have designed their environments to reduce software costs accordingly, initially with sub-capacity and then Workload Licence Charging (WLC) and the associated Rolling 4 Hour Average (R4HA). Arguably CPU MSU management is a specialized capacity and performance management discipline in itself, with several 3rd party ISV options for optimized soft-capping (I.E. AutoSoftCapping, iCap, zDynaCap/Dynamic Capacity Intelligence). IBM thinks that this MSU management discipline has thwarted new workloads being added to the IBM Z ecosystem, unless there was a mandatory requirement for CICS, Db2, IMS or MQ. Hence this recent approach of adding new and qualified workloads, outside of the traditional R4HA mechanism. These things take time and with a few tweaks and repairs, maybe the realm of possibility exists and perhaps the Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC) is a viable and eminently usable option?

SCLC offers a new pricing metric when calculating MLC software costs for qualified Container Pricing workloads. SCLC is based on actual MSU consumption, as opposed to the traditional R4HA WLC metric. SCLC delivers a pure and consistent metered usage model, where the MSU resource used is charged at the same flat rate, regardless of hourly workload peaks, delivering pricing predictability. Therefore, SCLC directly reflects the total workload cost, regardless of consumption, on a predictable “pay for what you use” basis. This is particularly beneficial for volatile workloads, which can significantly impact WLC costs associated with the R4HA. There are two variations of SCLC for qualified and IBM verified New Applications (NewApp):

The SCLC pay-as-you-go option offers a low priced, per-MSU model for software programs within the NewApp Solution, with no minimum financial commitment.

The SCLC-committed MSU option offers a saving of 20% over the pay-as-you-go price points, with a monthly minimum MSU commitment of just 25,000 MSUs.

SCLC costs are calculated and charged per MSU on an hourly basis, aggregated over an entire (SCRT) month. For example, if a NewApp solution utilized 50 MSU in hour #1, 100 MSU in hour #2 and 50 MSU in hour #3, the total chargeable MSU for the 3-hour period would be 200 MSU. Hourly periods continue to be calculated this way over the entire month, providing a true, usage-based cost model. We previously reviewed Container Pricing in a previous blog entry from August 2017. At first glance, the opportunity for a predictable workload cost seems evident, but what about the monthly MSU commitment of 25,000 MSU?

Let’s try and break this down at the simplest level, using the SCLC hourly MSU base metric. In a fixed 24-hour day and an arbitrary 30-day month, there would be 720 single MSU hours. To qualify for the 25,000 MSU commitment, the hourly workload would need to average ~35 MSU (~300 MIPS) in size. For the medium and large sized business, generating a 35 MSU workload isn’t a consideration, but probably is for the smaller IBM Mainframe user. The monthly commitment also becomes somewhat of a challenge, as a calendar month is 28/29 days, once per year, 30 days, four times per year and 31 days, seven times per year. This doesn’t really impact the R4HA, but for a pay per MSU usage model, the number of MSU hours per month does matter. One must draw one’s own conclusions, but it’s clearly easier to exceed the 25,000 MSU threshold in a 31-day month, when compared with a 30, 29 or 28 day month! From a dispassionate viewpoint, I can’t see any reason why the 20% discount can’t be applied when the 25,000 MSU threshold is exceeded, without a financial commitment form the customer. This would be a truly win-win situation for the customer and IBM, as the customer doesn’t have to concern themselves about exceeding the arbitrary 25,000 MSU threshold and IBM have delivered a usable and attractive pricing mechanism for the desired New Application workload.

The definition of a New Application workload is forever thus, based upon a qualified and verified workload by IBM, assigned a Solution ID for SCRT classification purposes, integrating CICS, Db2, MQ, IMS or z/OS software. Therefore existing workloads, potentially classified as legacy will not qualify for this New Application status, but any application re-engineering activities should consider this lower price per MSU approach. New technologies such as blockchain could easily transform a legacy application and benefit from New Application pricing, while the implementation of DevOps could easily transform non-Production workloads into benefiting from the Application Development and Test Solution Container Pricing mechanism.

In conclusion, MSU management is a very important discipline for any IBM Z user and any lower cost MSU that can be eliminated from the R4HA metric delivers improved TCO. As always, the actual IBM Z Mainframe user themselves are ideally placed to interact and collaborate with IBM and perhaps tweak these Container Pricing models to make them eminently viable for all parties concerned, strengthening the IBM Z ecosystem and value proposition accordingly.

Recently in my day-to-day activities I encountered a 3172 controller and was reminded of my first such encounter, back in 1992. This got me thinking; 25 years of IBM Mainframe IP connectivity! The IBM 3172 Interconnect Controller allowed LAN-to-Mainframe interconnection and was the pioneering technology allowing IP data off-load activities. Historically Mainframe data transfer operations, namely CCW I/O were dependant on a physical channel, where the 3172 was a stepping stone to the Open Systems Adapter (OSA) card in 1994, quickly superseded by the OSA-2 card in 1995. From a performance viewpoint, the OSA/OSA-2 cards matched maximum ESCON speeds of 17 MB/S.

However, the introduction of the OSA-Express technology in 1999 dramatically increased throughput to ~ 333 MB/S. The OSA-Express technology bypasses CCW channel-based I/O processing, connecting directly to the Self-Timed Inter-connect (STI) bus of Generation 6 (Retrofit to Generation 5) S/390 Mainframes. Data is transferred directly to or from the high speed Mainframe memory OSA-Express adapter I/O port, across the STI bus, with no intervening components or processing to slow down the data interchange. This bus-based I/O, a first for IBM Mainframe computing, significantly increases data transfer speeds, eliminating inefficiencies associated with intermediary components.

Additionally, IBM developed a totally new I/O scheme for the OSA-Express adapter. Queued Direct I/O (QDIO) is a highly optimized data queuing-based data interchange mechanism, leveraging from the message queuing expertise IBM acquired with their multi-platform MQSeries middleware solution. The QDIO-specific S/390 hardware instruction for G5/G6 machines, delivered an application to-OSA signalling scheme capable of handling the high-volume, multimedia data transfer requirements of 21st Century web applications. Where might we be without the 3172 Interconnect Controller and the MQSeries messaging solution?

Since OSA-Express2 the channel types supported have largely remain unchanged:

OSE: Non-QDIO, sets the OSA-Express card to function in non-QDIO mode, bypassing all of the advanced QDIO functions.

OSC: OSA-ICC, available with IBM Mainframes supporting GbE, eliminating the requirement for an external console controller, simplifying HMC and to the z/OS system console access, while introducing TN3270E connectivity.

OSX: (OSA-Express for zBX), provides connectivity and access control to the IntraEnsemble Data Network (IEDN) to the Unified Resource Manager (URM) function.

Returning to my original observation, it’s sometimes hard to reconcile finding a ~25 year old 3172 Controller in a Data Centre environment, preparing for a z14 upgrade! In conjunction with the z14 announcement, OSA-Express6S promised an Ethernet technology refresh for use in the PCIe I/O drawer and continues to be supported by the 16 GBps PCIe Gen3 host bus. The 1000BASE-T Ethernet feature supporting copper connectivity, in addition to 10 Gigabit Ethernet (10 GbE) and Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) for single-mode and multi-mode fibre optic environments. The OSA-Express6S 1000BASE-T feature will be the last generation to support 100 Mbps link speed connections. Future OSA-Express 1000BASE-T features will only support 1 Gbps link speed operation.

Of course, OSA-Express technology exposes the IBM Z Mainframe to the same security challenges as any other server node on the IP network, and as well as talking about Pervasive Encryption with this customer, we also talked about the increased security features of the OSA-Express6S adapter:

OSA-ICC Support for Secure Sockets Layer: when configured as an integrated console controller CHPID type (OSC) on the z14, supports the configuration and enablement of secure connections using the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. Server-side authentication is supported using either a self-signed certificate or a customer supplied certificate, which can be signed by a customer-specified certificate authority. The certificates used must have an RSA key length of 2048 bits, and must be signed by using SHA-256. This function support negotiates a cipher suite of AES-128 for the session key.

Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN): takes advantage of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.q standard for virtual bridged LANs. VLANs allow easier administration of logical groups of stations that communicate as though they were on the same LAN. In the virtualized environment of the IBM Z server, TCP/IP stacks can exist, potentially sharing OSA-Express features. VLAN provides a greater degree of isolation by allowing contact with a server from only the set of stations that comprise the VLAN.

QDIO Data Connection Isolation: provides a mechanism for security regulatory compliance (E.g. HIPPA) for network isolation between the instances that share physical network connectivity, as per installation defined security zone boundaries. A mechanism to isolate a QDIO data connection on an OSA port, by forcing traffic to flow to the external network. This feature safeguards that all communication flows only between an operating system and the external network. This feature is provided with a granularity of implementation flexibility for both the z/VM and z/OS operating systems.

As always, the single-footprint capability of an IBM Z server must be considered. From a base architectural OSA design viewpoint, OSA supports 640 TCP/IP stacks or connections per dedicated CHPID, or 640 total stacks across multiple LPARs using a shared or spanned CHPID. Obviously this allows the IBM Mainframe user to support more Linux images. Of course, this is a very important consideration when considering the latest z13 and z14 servers for Distributed Systems workload consolidation.

In conclusion, never under estimate the value of the OSA-Express adapter in your organization and its role in transitioning the IBM Mainframe from a closed proprietary environment in the early 1990’s, to just another node on the IP network, from the mid-1990’s to the present day. As per any other major technology for the IBM Z server, the OSA-Express adapter has evolved to provide the requisite capacity, performance, resilience and security attributes expected for an Enterprise Class workload. Finally, let’s not lose sight of the technology commonality associated with OSA-Express and Crypto Express adapters; clearly, fundamental building blocks of Pervasive Encryption…

On 17 July 2017 IBM announced the z14 server as “the next generation of the world’s most powerful transaction system, capable of running more than 12 billion encrypted transactions per day. The new system also introduces a breakthrough encryption engine that, for the first time, makes it possible to pervasively encrypt data associated with any application, cloud service or database all the time”.

At first glance, a cursory review of the z14 announcement might just appear as another server upgrade release, but that could be a costly mistake by the reader. There are always subtle nuisances in any technology announcement, while finding them and applying them to your own business can sometimes be a challenge. In this particular instance, perhaps one might consider “Persuasive Encryption & Contained Pricing”…

When IBM releases a new generation of z Systems server, many of us look to the “feeds and speeds” data and ponder how that might influence our performance and capacity profiles. IBM state the average z14 speed compared with a z13 increase by ~10% for 6-way servers and larger. As per usual, there are software Technology Transition Offering (TTO) discounts ranging from 6% to 21% for z14 only sites. However, in these times where workload profiles are rapidly changing and evolving, it’s sometimes easy to overlook that IBM have to consider the holistic position of the IBM Z world. Quite simply, IBM has many divisions, Hardware, Software, Services, et al. Therefore there has to be interaction between the hardware and software divisions and in this instance, IBM have delivered a z14 server that is security focussed, with their Pervasive Encryption functionality.

Pervasive Encryption provides a simple and transparent approach for z Systems security, enabling the highest levels of data encryption for all data usage scenarios, for example:

Processing: When retrieved from files and processed by applications

In Flight: When being transmitted over internal and external networks

At Rest: When stored in database structures or files

In Store: When stored in magnetic storage media

Pervasive Encryption simplifies and reduces costs associated when protecting data by policy (I.E. Subset) or En Masse (I.E. All Of The Data, All Of the Time), achieving compliance mandates. When considering the EU GDPR (European Union General Data Protection Regulation) compliance mandate, companies must notify relevant parties within 72 hours of first having become aware of a personal data breach. Additionally organizations can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater), for any GDPR breach unless they can demonstrate that data was encrypted and keys were protected.

To facilitate this new approach for encryption, the IBM z14 infrastructure incorporates several new capabilities integrated throughout the technology stack, including Hardware, Operating System and Middleware. Integrated CPU chip cryptographic acceleration is enhanced, delivering ~600% increased performance when compared with its z13 predecessor and ~20 times faster than competitive server platforms. File and data set encryption is optimized within the Operating Systems (I.E. z/OS), safeguarding transparent and optimized encryption, not impacting application functionality or performance. Middleware software subsystems including DB2 and IMS leverage from these Pervasive Encryption techniques, safeguarding that High Availability databases can be transitioned to full encryption without stopping the database, application or subsystem.

Arguably IBM had to deliver this type of security functionality for its top tier z Systems customers, as inevitably they would be impacted by compliance mandates such as GDPR. Conversely, the opportunity to address the majority of external hacking scenarios with one common approach is an attractive proposition. However, as always, the devil is always in the detail, and given an impending deadline date of May 2018 for GDPR compliance, I wonder how many z Systems customers could implement the requisite z14 hardware and related Operating System (I.E. z/OS) and Subsystem (I.E. CICS, DB2, IMS, MQ, et al) .upgrades before this date? From a bigger picture viewpoint, Pervasive Encryption does offer the requisite functionality to apply a generic end-to-end process for securing all data, especially Mission Critical data…

Previously we have considered the complexity of IBM z Systems pricing mechanisms and in theory, the z14 announcement tried to simplify some of these challenges by building upon and formalizing Container Pricing. Container Pricing is intended to greatly simplify software pricing for qualified collocated workloads, whether collocated with other existing workloads on the same LPAR, deployed in a separate LPAR or across multiple LPARs. Container pricing allows the specified workload to be separately priced based on a variety of metrics. New approved z/OS workloads can be deployed collocated with other sub-capacity products (I.E. CICS, DB2, IMS, MQ, z/OS) without impacting cost profiles of existing workloads.

As per most new IBM z Systems pricing mechanisms of late, there is a commercial collaboration and exchange required between IBM and their customer. Once a Container Pricing solution is agreed between IBM and their customer, for an agreed price, an IBM Sales order is initiated, triggering the creation of an Approved Solution ID. The IBM provided solution ID is a 64-character string representing an approved workload with an entitled MSU capacity, representing a Full Capacity Pricing Container used for billing purposes.

Previously we considered the importance of WLM for managing z/OS workloads and its interaction with soft-capping, and this is reinforced with this latest IBM Container Pricing mechanism. The z/OS Workload Manager (WLM) enables Container Pricing using a resource classified as the Tenant Resource Group (TRG), defining the workload in terms of address spaces and independent enclaves. The TRG, combined with a unique Approved Solution ID, represents the IBM approved solution. As per standard SCRT processing, workload instrumentation data is collected, safeguarding that this workload profile does not directly impact the traditional peak LPAR Rolling Four-Hour Average (R4HA). The TRG also allows the workload to be metered and optionally capped, independent of other workloads that are running collocated in the LPAR.

MSU utilization of the defined workload is recorded by WLM and RMF, subsequently processed by SCRT to subtract the solution MSU capacity from the LPAR R4HA. The solution can then be priced independently, based on MSU resource consumed by the workload, or based upon other non-MSU values, specifically a Business Value Metric (E.g. Number of Payments). Therefore Container Pricing is much simpler and much more flexible than previous IBM collocated workload mechanism, namely IWP and zCAP.

Container Pricing eliminates the requirement to commission specific new environments to optimize MLC pricing. By deploying a standard IBM process framework, new workloads can be commissioned without impacting the R4HA of collocated workloads, being deployed as per business requirements, whether on the same LPAR, a separate LPAR, or dispersed across multiple LPAR structures. Quite simply, the standard IBM process framework is the Approved Solution ID, associating the client based z/OS system environment to the associated IBM sales contract.

In this first iteration release associated with the z14 announcement, Container Pricing can be deployed in the following three solution based scenarios:

Application Development and Test Solution: Add up to 3 times more capacity to existing Development and Test environments without any additional monthly licensing costs; or create new LPAR environments with competitive pricing.

New Application Solution: Add new z/OS microservices or applications, priced individually without impacting the cost of other workloads on the same system.

Payments Pricing Solution: A single agreed value based price for software plus hardware or just software, via a number of payments processed metric, based on IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) software.

IBM state z14 support for a maximum 2 million Docker containers in an associated maximum 32 TB memory configuration. In conjunction with other I/O enhancements, IBM state a z14 performance increase of ~300%, when compared with its z13 predecessor. Historically the IBM Z platform was never envisaged as being the ideal container platform. However, its ability to seamlessly support z/OS and Linux, while the majority of mission critical Systems Of Record (SOR) data resides on IBM Z platforms, might just be a compelling case for microservices to be processed on the IBM Z platform, minimizing any data latency transfer.

Container Pricing for z/OS is somewhat analogous to the IBM Cloud Managed Services on z Systems pricing model (I.E. CPU consumption based). Therefore, if monthly R4HA peak processing is driven by an OLTP application, or any other workload for that matter, any additional unused capacity in that specific SCRT reporting month can be allocated for no cost to other workloads. Therefore z/OS customers will be able to take advantage of this approach, processing collocated microservices or applications for a zero or nominal cost.

County Multiplex Pricing (CMP) Observation: The z14 is the first new generation of IBM Z hardware since the introduction of the CMP pricing mechanism. When a client first implements a Multiplex, IBM Z server eligibility cannot be older than two generations (I.E. N-2) prior to the most recently available server (I.E. N). Therefore the General Availability (GA) of z14, classifies the z114 and z196 servers as previously eligible CMP machines. IBM will provide a 3 Month grace period for CMP transition activities for these N-3 servers, namely z114 and z196. Quite simply, the first client CMP invoice must be submitted within 90 days of the z14 GA date, namely 13 September 2017, no later than 1 January 2018.

In conclusion, Pervasive Encryption is an omnipresent z14 function integrated into every data lifecycle stage, which could easily be classified as Persuasive Encryption, simplifying the sometimes arduous process of classifying and managing mission-critical data. As cybersecurity becomes an omnipresent clear and present danger, associated with impending and increasingly punitive compliance mandates such as GDPR, the realm of possibility exists to resolve this high profile corporate challenge once and for all.

Likewise, Container Pricing provides a much needed simple-to-use framework to drive MSU cost optimization for new workloads and could easily be classified as Contained Pricing. The committed IBM Mainframe customer will upgrade their z13 server environment to z14, as part of their periodic technology refresh approach. Arguably, those Mainframe customers who have been somewhat hesitant in upgrading from older technology Mainframe servers, might just have a compelling reason to upgrade their environments to z14, safeguarding cybersecurity challenges and evolving processes to contain z/OS MLC costs.

Since the introduction of the S/360 Mainframe in 1964 there has been a gradual evolution of I/O connectivity that has taken us from copper Bus & Tag to fibre ESCON and now FICON channels. Obviously during this ~50 year period there have been exponentially more releases of Mainframe server and indeed Operating System. In this timeframe there have been 2 significant I/O technology milestones. Firstly, in 1990, ESCON was part of the significant S/390 announcement (MVS/ESA), where migration to ESCON was a great benefit, if only for replacing the heavy and big copper Bus & Tag channels. Secondly, even though FICON was released in the late 1990’s, in 2009 IBM announced that the z10 would be the last Mainframe server to support greater than 240 native ESCON channels. Similarly IBM declared that the last zEnterprise server to support ESCON channels are the z196 and z114 servers. Each of these major I/O evolutions required a migration philosophy and not every I/O device would be upgraded to support either native ESCON of FICON channels. How did customers achieve these mandatory I/O upgrades to safeguard IBM Mainframe Server and associated Operating System longevity?

In 2009 it was estimated ~20% of all Mainframe customers were using ESCON only I/O infrastructures, while only ~20% of all Mainframe customers were deploying a FICON only infrastructure. Similarly ~33% of z9 and z10 systems were shipped with ESCON CVC (Block Multiplexor) and CBY (Byte Multiplexor) channels defined, while ~75% of all Mainframe Servers had native ESCON (CNC) capability. From a dispassionate viewpoint, clearly the migration from ESCON to FICON was going to be a significant challenge, while even in this timeframe, there was still use of Bus & Tag channels…

One of the major strengths of the IBM Mainframe ecosystem is the partner network, primarily software (ISV) based, but with some significant hardware (IHV) providers. From a channel switch viewpoint, we will all be familiar with Brocade, Cisco and McData, where Brocade acquired McData in 2006. However, from a channel protocol conversion viewpoint, IBM worked with Optica Technologies, to deliver a solution that would allow the support for ESCON and Bus & Tag channels to the FICON only zBC12/zEC12 and future Mainframe servers (I.E. z13, z13s). Somewhat analogous to the smartphone where the user doesn’t necessarily know that an ARM processor might be delivering CPU power to their phone, sometimes even seasoned Mainframe professionals might inadvertently overlook that the Optica Technologies Prizm solution has been or indeed is still deployed in their System z Data Centre…

When IBM work with a partner from an I/O connectivity viewpoint, clearly IBM have to safeguard that said connectivity has the highest interoperability capability with bulletproof data exchange attributes. Sometimes we might take this for granted with the ubiquitous disk and tape subsystem suppliers (I.E. EMC, HDS, IBM, Oracle), but for FICON conversion support, Optica Technologies was a collaborative partner for IBM. Ultimately the IBM Hardware Systems Assurance labs deploy their proprietary System Assurance Kernel (SAK) processes to safeguard I/O subsystem interoperability for their System z Mainframe servers. Asking that rhetorical question; when was the last time you asked your IHV for site of their System Assurance Kernel (SAK) exit report from their collaboration with IBM Hardware Systems Assurance labs for their I/O subsystem you’re considering or deploying? In conclusion, the SAK compliant, elegant, simple and competitively priced Prizm solution allowed the migration of tens if not hundreds of thousands of ESCON connections in thousands of Mainframe data centres globally!

With such a rich heritage of providing a valuable solution to the global IBM Mainframe install base, whether the smallest or largest, what would be next for Optica Technologies? Obviously leveraging from their expertise in FICON channel support would be a good way forward. With the recent acquisition of Bus-Tech by EMC and the eradication of the flexible MDL tapeless virtual tape offering, Optica Technologies are ideally placed to be that small, passionate and eminently qualified IHV to deliver a turnkey virtual tape solution for the smaller and indeed larger System z user. The Optica Technologies zVT family leverages from the robust and heritage class Prizm technology, delivering an innovative family of virtual tape solutions. The entry “Virtual Tape In A Box” zVT 3000i provides 2 FICON channel interfaces and 4 TB uncompressed internal RAID-5 disk space, seamlessly interfacing with all System z supported tape devices (I.E. 3490, 3590) and processes. A single enterprise class zVT 5000-iNAS node delivers 2 FICON channel interfaces, NFS storage capacity from 8TB to 1PB in a single frame with standard deduplication, compression, replication and encryption features. The zVT 5000-iNAS is available with multi-node configuration support for additional scalability and resiliency. For those customers wishing to deploy their own choice of NFS or FC storage subsystem, the zVT 5000-FLEX allows such connectivity accordingly.

In conclusion, sometimes it’s all too easy to take some solutions for granted, when they actually delivered a tangible and arguably priceless solution in the evolution of your organizations System z Mainframe server journey from ESCON, if not Bus & Tag to FICON. Perhaps the Prizm solution is one of these unsung products? Therefore, the next time you’re reviewing the virtual tape market place, why wouldn’t you seriously consider Optica Technologies, given their rich heritage in FICON channel interoperability? Given that IBM chose Optica Technologies as their strategic partner for ESCON to FICON migration, seemingly even IBM might have thought “nobody gets fired for choosing…”!

Having been in the IT industry for 35+ years, I have always fully embraced and learned new technologies, to find strategic solutions for business challenges. Obviously, starting in 1980, my heritage is IBM Mainframe, supplemented by UNIX, Wintel and Linux along the way. Each and every platform has its merits, and during this 35+ year period, I have attended many conferences, for all platforms. What I have noticed during this period is the attendance of many IBM Mainframe CIO, CTO or Chief Architect individuals at non-IBM Mainframe conferences, but very few, if any, equivalent Distributed Systems personnel at IBM Mainframe conferences.

I’m always surprised and disappointed to hear about organizations talking about decommissioning the IBM Mainframe platform, with tenuous reasons, based on Distributed Systems FUD messaging, as opposed to their own business requirements. Thankfully these scenarios are decreasing over the years. Presumably if an organization decides to migrate from one Distributed Systems platform to another or perhaps the Cloud, they do at least attend the relevant platform conferences to make an informed decision.

Over the last 25 years or so, IBM themselves compete with differing divisions and options, whether UNIX (AIX), System z and in recent years, Linux on z Systems, most notably with the LinuxONE launch at LinuxCon 2015. One would hope that the world’s key IT decision makers might attend LinuxCon with an open mind and learn more about the System z Mainframe?

A ridiculous notion might be that one server platform technology can satisfy a 21st Century organizations IT infrastructure for their mission critical services. Clearly that has not been the case since the advent of Client Server and today’s emerging Digital business requires an infrastructure of multiple layers, where the underlying server technology is somewhat arbitrary, and arguably a commodity resource. Conversely the underlying data and associated applications differentiate one business from another, delivering business value and competitive edge.

Let’s take some time to consider this IT architecture design, which very quickly dismisses any notion that one server technology delivers all business requirements:

Such an architecture diagram does not impose any technology decisions. Conversely it explores the “data journey” from access or creation, via Systems of Engagement (SoE) to eventual storage within Systems of Record (SOR) data repositories (I.E. Database). Some might say it was forever thus, with the exception of the Multi-Channel SDK’s & API’s layer, where the savvy organizations will embrace DevOps, Hybrid Cloud and connectivity (I.E. API, SDK) solutions, seamlessly integrating modern agile applications, with that most valuable business asset, Systems of Record (SoR) data.

Today’s Application Developer doesn’t need to concern themselves as to the platform used for their DevOps application processes, the Transaction Server or indeed the Database Server. Sure, several decades ago, maybe even a decade ago, application code was deeply associated if not confined to a specific CPU server architecture. Clearly that is no longer the case. Any organization that still thinks in this legacy manner, is behind the times, and this is unfortunate. Associating such outdated thinking with the System z Mainframe is arguably careless, and not a reason for dismissing an incumbent System z platform, or not considering a System z platform in the future.

Arguably the greatest strengths of today’s System z IBM Mainframe, currently packaged as the z13 or LinuxONE, are as a Database Server (E.g. DB2), Transaction Server (E.g. CICS, WebSphere Application Server) and Security Server (E.g. ACF2, RACF, Top Secret). From a LinuxONE viewpoint, it’s just another server, capable of processing all of the latest strategic Open Source and Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Cloud, Database and Application solutions, while benefitting from the unparalleled System z Quality of Service (QoS) attributes.

However, for those organizations already deploying a System z Mainframe, its greatest perceived issue is TCO. Without doubt the convoluted and intricate Workload Licence Charges (WLC) are unnecessarily complicated and perceived as being very expensive. Optimizing these costs requires a modicum of expertise, safeguarding that the best contractual conditions are negotiated. However, I encounter the same complexities with Distributed Systems platforms, where software license costs can spiral out of control for significant CPU capacity deployments. Whatever platform is deployed, System z Mainframe or Distributed System, unless the business has the requisite skills in place, technical and commercial, to safeguard the lowest cost possible, commercial ISV suppliers will take advantage of such an oversight.

I’m not advocating any server technology, System z Mainframe, Distributed System or Cloud, as each resource has its merits, depending on the business requirement. However, today’s 21st Century organization must enable new business channels by leveraging from and arguably enable new business channels by monetizing their Systems of Record (SoR) enterprise data.

Today, organizations need to consider an API Economy, where they expose their internal digital business assets or services in the form of Web API services to external 3rd party partners and consumers, with an overall objective of unlocking increased business value via the creation of new assets. Such an API Economy will require integration of Transaction and Data resources, specifically:

Centrally manage the consumption of enterprise wide business logic, for both Systems of Record (SoR) & Systems of Engagement (SoE)

Extend business (E.g. Product, Brand) reach from Systems of Record (SoR), incorporation Systems of Engagement (SoE)

Previously I wrote about How to Connect Mobile Workloads to System z, detailing the conceptual steps required to expose existing SoR data assets with SoE transaction services, via z/OS Connect. For a fully integrated end-to-end integrated solution, we must also consider the Application Programming Interfaces (API), being the digital glue that seamlessly links applications, services and systems together.

IBM API Connect is a solution that manages the API lifecycle for both On-Premises and Cloud environments. IBM API Connect delivers capabilities to Create, Run, Manage & Secure API resources and Microservices. It also enables you to rapidly deploy and simplify API administration, across the organization.

API Connect can be deployed On-Premises via Linux on z Systems, in the cloud (E.g. Bluemix), as well as all other popular Distributed Systems. Once again, the main message is that the chosen server is arbitrary, System z Mainframe, Distributed System or Cloud. The server should be considered as a commodity resource, leveraging from existing business logic (I.E. SoE) and data (I.E. SoR), while evolving existing Application Lifecycle Management (E.g. Agile, API Economy, DevOps) is the key.

My final observation is the Mainframe Baby Boomer (E.g. Born ~1960) versus the Millennial (E.g. Born ~1995) technical personnel resource. Without doubt, there are significant differences in their approach to application programming, but only one resource, namely the Baby Boomer knows the business really well. I think these folks have the ability to learn another 21st Century programming language, as well as COBOL, but perhaps their best attribute is an analytical role, especially for the integration of SoE and SoR layers. Working very closely with Millennial technical resources, delivering the new Application (I.E. App, API) resources, the Mainframe Baby Boomer still has something valuable to offer in their final employment years. For the avoidance of doubt, still delivering value from an analytical viewpoint, while transferring their skills and knowledge to their successors, namely the Millennial.

In conclusion, dismissing any server technology for Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt (FUD) reasons, is an unproductive and ridiculous notion. More importantly, what might your business lose in opportunity, spending several years or more, migrating from one platform to another, while your competitors are embracing the Digital Age with an API Economy approach, delivering more value from their existing business SoE (transactions) and SoR (data) assets?

A sophisticated mechanism is required to orchestrate the allocation of System z resources (E.g. CPU, Memory, I/O) to multiple z/OS workloads, requiring differing business processing priorities. Put very simply, a mechanism is required to translate business processing requirements (I.E. SLA) into an automated and equitable z/OS performance manager. Such a mechanism will safeguard the highest possible throughput, while delivering the best possible system responsiveness. Ideally, such a mechanism will assist in delivering this optimal performance, for the lowest cost; for z/OS, primarily Workload License Charges (WLC) related. Of course, the Workload Management (WLM) z/OS Operating System component delivers this functionality.

A rhetorical question for all z/OS Performance Managers and z/OS MLC Cost Managers would be “how much importance does your organization place on WLM and how proactively do you manage this seemingly pivotal z/OS component”? In essence, this seems like a ridiculous question, yet there is evidence that suggests many organizations, both customer and ISV alike, don’t necessarily consider WLM to be a fundamental or high priority performance management discipline. Let’s consider several reasons why WLM is a fundamental component in balancing cost and performance for each and every z/OS environment:

CPU (MSU) Resource Capping: Whatever the capping method (I.E. Absolute, Hard, Soft), WLM is a controlling mechanism, typically in conjunction with PR/SM, determining when capping is initiated, how it is managed and when it is terminated. Therefore from a dispassionate viewpoint, any 3rd party ISV product that performs MSU optimization via soft capping mechanisms should ideally consider the same CPU (E.g. SMF Type 70, 72, 99) instrumentation data as WLM. Some solutions don’t offer this granularity (E.g. AutoSoftCapping, iCap).

MLC R4HA Cost Management: WLM is the fundamental mechanism for controlling this #1 System z software TCO component; namely WLM collects 48 consecutive metric CPU MSU resource usage every 5 Minutes, commonly known as the Rolling 4 Hour Average (R4HA). In an ideal world, an optimally managed workload that generates a “valid monthly peak”, will fully utilize this “already paid for” available CPU MSU resource for the remainder of the MLC eligible month (I.E. Start of the 2nd day in a calendar month, to the end of the 1st day in the next calendar month). More recently, Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP) allows an organization to move workloads between System z server (I.E. CPC) structures, without cost consideration for cumulative R4HA peaks. Similarly, Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) reporting will be simplified with WLM service definitions in z/OS 2.2. Therefore it seems prudent that real-time WLM management, both in terms of real-time reporting and pro-active decision making makes sense.

Since its announcement in September 1994 (I.E. MVS/ESA Version 5), WLM has evolved to become a fully-rounded and highly capable z/OS System Resources Manager (SRM), simply translating business prioritization policies into dynamic function, optimizing System z CPU, Memory and I/O resources. More recently, WLM continues to simplify the management of CPU chip cache hierarchy resources, while reporting abilities gain in strength, with topology reporting and the promise of simplified MWP reporting. Moreover, WLM resource management becomes more granular and seemingly the realm of possibility exists to “micro manage” System z performance, as and if required. Conversely, WLM provides the opportunity to simplify System z performance management, with intelligent workload differentiation (I.E. Subsystem Enclave, Batch, JES, USS, et al).

Quite simply, IBM are providing the instrumentation and tools for the 21st Century System z Performance and Software Cost Subject Matter Expert (SME) to deliver optimal performance for minimal cost. However, it is incumbent for each and every System z user to optimize software TCO, proactively implementing new processes and leveraging from System z functions accordingly.

Returning to that earlier rhetorical question about the importance of WLM; seemingly its importance is without doubt, primarily because of its instrumentation and management abilities of increasingly cache rich System z CPU chips and its fundamental role in controlling CPU MSU resource, vis-à-vis the R4HA.

Although IBM will provide the System z user with function to optimize system performance and cost, for obvious commercial reasons IBM will not reduce the base cost of System z MLC software. However, recent MLC pricing announcements, namely Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP), Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) and Collocated Application Pricing (zCAP) provide tangible options to reduce System z MLC TCO. Therefore the System z user might need to consider how they can access real-time WLM performance metrics, intelligently combining this instrumentation data with function to intelligently optimize CPU MSU resource, managing the R4HA accordingly.

Workload X-Ray (WLXR) from zIT Consulting simplifies WLM performance reporting, enabling users to drill down into the root cause of performance variances in a very fast and easy way. WLXR assists in root cause problem determination by zooming in, starting from a high level overview, going right down to detailed Service Class performance information, such as the Performance Index (PI), showing potential bottleneck situations during peak time. Any system overhead considerations are limited, as WLXR delivers meaningful real time information on a “need to know” basis.

A fundamental design objective for WLXR is data reduction, only delivering the important information required for timely and professional workload management. Straight to the point information instead of data overload, sometimes from a plethora of data sources (E.g. SMF, System Monitors, et al). WLXR incorporates the following easy-to-use functions:

Without doubt, WLM is a significant z/OS System Resources Management function, simplifying the translation of business workload requirements (I.E. Service Level Agreement) into timely and proactive allocation of major System z hardware resources (I.E. CPU, Memory, I/O). This management of System z resources has been forever thus for 20+ years, while WLM has always offered “software cost control” functionality, working with the various and evolving CPU capping techniques. What might not be so obvious, is that there is a WLM orientated price versus performance correlation, which has become more evident in the last 5 years or so. Whether Absolute Capping, HiperDispatch, Mobile Workload Pricing, Country Multiplex Pricing or evolving Soft Capping techniques, the need for System z users to integrate z/OS MLC pricing considerations alongside WLM performance based management is evident.

Historically there was not a clear and identified need for a z/OS Performance/Capacity Manager to consider MLC costs in their System z server designs. However, there is a clear and present danger that this historic modus operandi continues and there will only be one financial winner, namely IBM, with unnecessarily high MLC charges. Each and every System z user, whether large or small, can safeguard the longevity of their IBM Mainframe platform by recognizing and deploying proactive and current System z MLC cost management processes.

All too often it seems that capping can be envisaged as punitive, degrading system performance to reduce System z MLC costs. Such a notion needs to be consigned to history, with a focussed perspective on MSU optimization, where the valuable and granular MSU resource is allocated to the workload that requires such CPU resource, with near real-time performance profiling. If we perceive MSU optimization to be R4HA based and that IBM are increasing WLM function to assist this objective, CPU capping can be a benefit that does not adversely impact performance. As previously stated, once a valid R4HA peak has occurred, that high MSU watermark is available for the remainder of the MLC billing period. Similarly at a more granular level, once a workload has peaked and its MSU usage declines, the available MSU can be redirected to other workloads. With the introduction of Country Multiplex Pricing, System z users no longer need to concern themselves about creating a higher R4HA peak, when moving workloads between System z servers.

Quite simply, from the two most important perspectives, performance and cost optimization, WLM provides the majority of functionality to assist System z users get the best performance for the lowest cost. Analytics based products like Workload X-Ray (WLXR) assist this endeavour, analysing WLM data in near real-time from a performance and MLC cost perspective. It therefore follows that if this important information is also available for sophisticated MSU optimization solutions, which consider WLM performance (E.g. zDynaCap, zPrice Manager), then proactive performance and cost management follows. It’s hard to envisage how a fully-rounded MSU optimization decision can be implemented in near real-time, from an MSU optimization solution that does not consider WLM performance metrics…

Recently IBM announced ~4% price increases in z/OS Monthly License Charges (MLC) for selected Operating System and Middleware software programs and associated features. Specifically, price increases will apply to the VWLC, AWLC, EWLC, AEWLC, PSLC, FWLC and TWLC pricing metrics. Notably, SDSF price increases will be ~20% with Advanced Function Printing (AFP) product price increases of ~13-24%. In a global economy where inflation rates for The USA and Western Europe are close to 0%, one must draw one’s own conclusions accordingly. Lets’ not forget that product version changes typically have an associated price increase. From a contractual viewpoint, IBM only have to provide 90 days advance notice for such price changes, in this instance, IBM provided 150+ days advanced notice.

Price increases are inevitable and as always, it’s better to be proactive as opposed to reactive to such changes. As always, the old proverbs always make good sense and in this instance, “look after the Pennies and the Pounds will look after themselves”! This periodic IBM price increase is inevitable, but is not the underlying issue for controlling System z software costs. For many years, since 1994 to be precise, when IBM introduced Parallel Sysplex License Charges (PSLC), the need for IBM Mainframe users to minimize MSU usage has been of high if not critical importance. Nothing has changed in this 20+ year period and even though IBM might have introduced Sub-Capacity and specialty engines to minimize chargeable MSU usage, has each and every System z user optimized their MSU usage? Ideally this would not be a rhetorical question, rather being a “Golden Rule”, where despite organic CPU capacity increases of ~10% per annum, a System z environment could maintain near static IBM MLC software costs.

I have written several blog entries and presented on this subject matter over the years, for example:

The simple bottom line is that System z MLC software accounts for ~20-35% of the overall System z TCO, typically being the #1 expenditure item. For that reason alone, it’s incumbent for each and every System z user to safeguard they have the technical and commercial skills in place to manage this cost item, not as an afterthought, but inbuilt into each and every System z process, from application design, through to that often neglected afterthought, application tuning.

Many System z organizations might try to differentiate between a nuance of System and Application tuning, but such a “not my problem” type attitude is not acceptable and will be imposing a significant financial burden on each and every organization.

A dispassionate and pragmatic approach is required for optimizing System z CPU usage. In this timeframe, let’s examine the ~20% SDSF price increase. IBM will quite rightly state that in conjunction with their z/OS 2.2 release, there are significant SDSF product function advancements, including zIIP offload, REXX interoperability and increased information delivery. However are such function improvements over and above the norm and not expected as a Business As Usual (BAU) product improvements, which should be included in the Service & Support (S&S) or Monthly License Charges (MLC) paid for software?

In October 2013 I wrote a blog entry; Mainframe ISV Software: Is Continuous Product Improvement Always Evident? The underlying message was that an ISV should deliver the best product they can, for each and every release, without necessarily increasing software costs. In this particular instance, the product was an SDSF equivalent, namely (E)JES, which many years ago delivered all of the function incorporated in SDSF for z/OS 2.2, but for a fraction of the cost…

As of 1 November 2015, IBM will start billing cycles for Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP), which requires the October 2015 version of SCRT, namely V23R10. A Multiplex is defined as a collection of all System z servers in one country, measured as one System z server for software sub-capacity reporting. Sub-Capacity program utilization peaks across the Multiplex will be measured, as opposed to separate peaks by System z servers. CMP also provides the flexibility to move and run workloads anywhere with the elimination of Sysplex aggregation pricing rules.

Migrating to CMP is focussed on CPU capacity growth and flexibility going forward. Therefore System z users should not expect price reductions for their existing workloads upon CMP deployment. Indeed there are CMP deployment considerations. A CMP MSU baseline (base) needs to be established, where this MSU Base and associated MLC Base Factor is established for each sub-capacity MLC product and each applicable feature code. These MSU and MLC bases represent the previous 3 Month averages reported by SCRT before commencing CMP. Quite simply, to gain the most from CMP, the System z user must safeguard that their R4HA for each and every MLC product is optimized, before setting the CMP baseline, otherwise CMP related cost savings going forward are likely to be null.

From a very high-level management viewpoint, we must observe that IBM are a commercial organization, and although IBM provide mechanisms for controlling cost going forward, only the System z user can optimize System z MLC cost for their organization. Arguably with CMP, Soft-Capping isn’t a consideration, it’s mandatory.

Put very simply, each and every System z user can safeguard that they look after the Pennies (Cents) and the Pounds (Euros, Dollars) will look after themselves by paying careful attention to System z MLC software costs. Setting a baseline of System z MLC costs is mandatory, whether for the first time, or to set a new baseline for CMP deployment. Maintaining or lowering this System z MLC cost baseline should or arguably must be the objective going forward, even when considering 10% organic CPU growth, each and every year. System z decision-makers and managers must commit to such an objective and safeguard the provision of adequately skilled personnel to optimize such a considerable TCO cost line item (I.E. MLC @ ~20-35% of System z TCO). In an ecosystem with technical resources including DBA, Systems Programmer, Capacity Planner, Application Personnel, Performance Tuning, et al, why wouldn’t there be a specialist Software Cost Manager?

Let’s consider how even an inexperienced System z user can maintain a baseline of System z MLC costs, even with organic CPU capacity growth of 10% per annum:

New Application Deployment: As and when possible, deploy new or convert existing workloads to benefit from the optimal MLC pricing metric; previously zNALC, nowadays zCAP.

Technical & Commercial Skills Currency: Safeguard personnel have the latest System z software pricing knowledge, ideally from an independent 3rd party such as Watson & Walker.

In conclusion, as householders we have the opportunity to optimize our cost expenditure, choosing and switching between various major cost items such as financial, utility and vehicle products. As System z users, we don’t have that option, only IBM provide System z servers and associated base architecture, namely the most expensive MLC software products, z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS and WebSphere/MQ. However, just as we manage our domestic budgets, reducing power usage, optimizing vehicle TCO and getting more bang from our buck for financial products various, we can and must deliver this same due diligence for our System z MLC TCO. With industry averages of ~$500-$1000 per MSU for z/OS MLC software and associated annual expenditure measured in many millions, why wouldn’t any System z user look to deliver 10%+ cost per MSU optimization, year-on-year for their organization?

Clearly the cost of doing nothing in this instance, is significant, measured in magnitudes of millions, each and every year. Hence for System z MLC TCO optimization, looking after the Pennies is more than worthwhile, while the associated benefit of the Pounds, Euros or Dollars looking after themselves is arguably priceless.

Historically there was a very simple synergy between the IBM S/370 Mainframe and its supporting disk I/O (DASD) subsystem, allowing for Mainframe host to physical and logical disk device (I.E. 3390) connectivity. The analysis and tuning of this I/O subsystem has always been and continues to be supported by the SMF Type 7n records via IBM RMF and the BMC CMF alternative. However, over the years, major advances in DASD subsystems and the System z Mainframe server have delivered many layers of technology resources (E.g. Cache, Memory, FICON Channels, RAID Storage, Proprietary Microcode, et al) and this has introduced complexities into highlighting DASD I/O subsystem performance problems.

The focus of technology based metrics (E.g. I/O Rate Response Time, I/O MB/S Bandwidth, et al) have also been complemented with more meaningful business focussed Service Level Agreements (SLA). Therefore today’s System z I/O Performance Analyst must gather and act upon proactive meaningful information from the ever-increasing amounts of performance data available. Put another way, too much data can deliver not enough information! As previously stated, it was forever thus, RMF and CMF have always collected the requisite performance data available and arguably no other data source is required (E.g. OMEGAMON/TMON/SYSVIEW Performance Monitor, SAS/MXG/MICS/WPS Performance Database). RMF/CMF is the ideal data source for thorough and timely System z I/O performance management, where intelligent analytics and expert knowledge are required to present this “Golden Record”.

However, today’s System z Support Teams need simple and timely presentation of the data, highlighting potential challenges, graphically presented for their Management, allowing for simple tracking of SLA agreements and technology changes (I.E. Software/Hardware Upgrades).

Additionally, Workload Manager (WLM) can control non-paging queued DASD I/O requests, based upon device busy conditional processing. Therefore the z/OS system can manage I/O priorities in a Sysplex, based on WLM service class goals. WLM dynamically adjusts the I/O priority based on service class goal performance and whether a DASD device can influence the overall performance objectives. For obvious reasons, this WLM function does not micro-manage I/O priorities, only changing a service class period’s I/O priority infrequently. WLM is deployed by many System z users to assist in the automated management of system resources (E.g. CPU, Memory, I/O, et al), based upon Service Level goals.

From a DASD subsystem technology viewpoint, there is no longer an obvious one-one direct connection between the Mainframe host and DASD device. An increasing number of technological advances, both microcode and hardware (E.g. Memory, Fibre Channel, Function Assist Processing, et al) have diminished the requirement for data access directly from the physical device. Put another way, in today’s world of System z servers with multiple cache level CPU chips (I.E. Relative Nest Intensity), massive and multiple processor memory resources (I.E. z13 @ 10 TB Memory), high bandwidth Fibre Channel (I.E. FICON, zHPF) subsystem and a hierarchy of DASD memory (I.E. SSD/Flash, Cache), it’s not uncommon to consider an I/O that requires physical device access as a problem! Finally and most importantly, from a DASD subsystem viewpoint, each of the recognized System z DASD providers, EMC (Symmetrix VMAX), HDS (VSP G1000) and IBM (DS8870) have highly proprietary DASD subsystems that provide z/OS plug compatibility, but deliver overall I/O performance using their own unique architecture and internal algorithms.

Of course, an over configured hardware environment will deliver a poor TCO, while an under configured environment will manifest in SLA issues and bad user experiences, where the middle-ground always delivers the optimal environment. Resource optimization always demands proactive day-to-day management, from an internal and indeed external communication viewpoint. With the highly proprietary design features of the IHV DASD subsystems, whether EMC, HDS or IBM, having the right information and identifying the precise problem, simplifies the communication process with the IHV. Such communication might highlight a resource under provision (E.g. Memory Capacity), a subsystem setting tweak requirement, either host or subsystem based, or indeed a hardware failure. In today’s world, these issues need to be fixed in minutes or hours, not days or weeks.

Therefore, where does today’s System z I/O Performance Analyst start to collect the required information to safeguard that their DASD subsystem is optimized, both from a capacity and performance viewpoint?

A simplistic viewpoint of an I/O health-check should consider the following:

Service Level Agreements (SLA): Are overall objectives being delivered or missed?

User Experience: Are users (customers) complaining of poor service or response times?

Several decades ago, an overall I/O health check might have been a periodic (E.g. Weekly or longer) activity, whereas today it’s undoubtedly a Business As Usual (BAU) and 24*7 activity. Therefore a fully automated solution is required, built upon the tried and tested System z performance fundamentals, namely RMF or CMF. The ideal solution will perform analytics based data reduction, presenting the right information, at the right time, allowing for intelligent business based communication, both internally, to customers and end users from an SLA viewpoint, and externally, with IHV DASD suppliers, safeguarding optimal performance and TCO.

EADM (Easy Analyze DASD Mainframe) is a solution from Technical Storage that performs automated performance analysis of the z/OS I/O subsystem, delivering predictive analytics for better storage capacity planning and performance measurement. The Technical Storage EADM architects have in excess of 40 years IBM Mainframe experience, specializing in the I/O subsystem, and so it’s no surprise that EADM delivers expert and timely knowledge via an easy-to-use solution.

EADM is an easy-to-install and easy-to-use plug-and-play solution that has no proprietary considerations, requiring no additional System z resource (E.g. CPU, Memory, DASD, et al) requirements. Installed on Microsoft server platforms, EADM is easily virtualized via VMware, Hyper-V, et al, requiring no target database for performance data storage. EADM performs a daily health check of the entire System z disk subsystem. EADM works around the clock, delivering customized and automatic user friendly GUI type reports. For today’s System z technician, the open and IP architecture base of EADM allows for secure remote access via Mobile, Tablet or Laptop devices, as and when required.

Operations and performance teams are alerted as soon as performance variances occur, typically in minutes, assisting in the identification of underlying root problems, causing changes in system behaviour. Incorporating intelligent and meaningful I/O performance indicators, with drill-down and zoom-in ability, storage technicians can determine if the problem is temporary, permanent, local or global. By simplifying the data reduction process (E.g. RMF/CMF data from numerous LPAR/Sysplex environments), EADM safeguards that the internal technical team can efficiently manage their ever increasingly complex and large DASD environment, for intelligent and timely communications with internal business teams and external suppliers alike.

A well provisioned and performing System z I/O subsystem is of vital importance for safeguarding today’s ever increasing storage requirements of mission critical business applications. A poorly performing I/O subsystem will generate unnecessary and extra CPU overhead, with potential and tangible TCO impact, in conjunction with potential business impact. Although the advances of the System z server and underlying DASD I/O subsystem can compensate for many application code or data placement issues, the fundamental concepts of analysing and tuning the I/O subsystem remain.

Therefore the savvy and proactive System z customer will safeguard that they find a solution to deliver optimal DASD I/O performance. Without doubt, such an analysis could be performed by a highly-skilled individual, but today’s 21st Century world demands a hybrid of technical and commercial skills. Therefore a solution that incorporates the diagnostic knowledge of the most highly trained technician, performs intelligent analytics on a plethora of Sysplex wide performance data sources and presents the information required, is one that will deliver benefit each and every day. EADM is an example of such a solution, delivering demonstrable System z TCO optimization benefits, while safeguarding a short-term ROI, with simple deployment and resource utilization attributes.

As long ago as 1997, IBM integrated Java into their IBM Mainframe platform, in those days via the then flagship OS/390 Operating System. As with any new technology, perhaps the initial OS/390 Java integration offerings were not perfect, but some ~20 years later, a lot has changed…

In 2000, IBM Java SDK 1.3.1 delivered z/OS and Linux on z support, quickly followed by 64-bit z/OS support in 2003 via SDK 1.4. In 2004 Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler technology support was provided, while Java code has always exploited IBM specialty engines, primarily zAAP initially and now via zIIP and the zAAP on zIIP capability. Put simply, IBM continues to invest aggressively in Java for System z, demonstrating a history of innovation and performance improvements, up to and including the latest z13 server.

So why should a 21st century business consider the System z platform for Java workloads?

Arguably the primary reason is a rapidly emerging requirement for the true 24*7*365 workload, which cannot accommodate a batch window, where Java is ideally placed to serve both batch and OLTP workloads. Put another way, the need to process batch work has not gone away, whereas a requirement to process batch work concurrently with OLTP services has emerged. Of course, traditionally the typical System z enterprise might have two sets of IT staff for OLTP and batch workloads, typically in the IT Support and Application Management teams, whereas via Java and a workload centric approach, separate batch and OLTP support personnel are not necessarily required.

For the System z platform, Java support has always been incorporated into the core architectural building blocks, namely z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS, WebSphere, Batch Runtime, et al. Therefore there are no functional reasons why new applications or indeed existing applications cannot be engineered using the pervasive Java programming language and deployed on the System z platform.

Quite simply, Java is a critically important language for IBM System z. Java has become foundational for data serving and transaction serving, the traditional strengths of IBM System z. WebSphere applications written in Java and processing via System z, benefit from a key advantage through co-location. This delivers better response times, greater throughput and reduced system complexity when driving CICS, DB2 and IMS transactions.

Java is also critical for enabling next generation workloads in the IBM defined Cloud, Analytics, Mobile & Security (CAMS) framework. Cloud and mobile applications can access z/OS data and transactions via z/OS Connect and other WebSphere solutions, all inherently Java based. Java on System z also provides a full set of cryptographic functions to implement secure solutions. A key strength of Java applications is the ability to immediately benefit from the latest hardware performance improvements using the Just In-Time (JIT) compiler incorporated in the latest IBM Java SDK releases.

Let’s not forget, there are many other good reasons why Java might be considered as a viable application programming language:

Personnel Skills Availability: Java is typically ranked in the top 3 of most widely used programming languages; therefore personnel availability is abundant and cost efficient.

Application Tooling Support: Application Development tools have evolved to the point of true platform independence, where Application Programmers just create their code, they don’t necessarily know or sometimes care, where that code will execute. Let’s not forget the simplification of Java code for OLTP and batch workloads, reducing associated IT lifecycle support costs.

TCO Efficiencies: Simplified Application Development and deployment reduces associated cost, while reducing implementation time for mission-critical workloads. Java exploitation of the zAAP (zAAP on zIIP) safeguards low software costs and optimized processing times (I.E. Sub-Capacity specialty engines run at full speed).

With the announcement of the zEC12 server, notable Java enhancements included:

Specific z/OS Java 8 Exploitation of z13 SIMD – Java 8 exploits the new z13 SIMD vector hardware instructions for Java libraries and functions. These SIMD vector hardware instructions on z13 for improved performance, where specific idioms/operations were improved by between 2X and 60X. Performance benefits for real life Java applications will be dependent on how frequently these idiom/operations are used.

In conclusion, the IBM commitment to Java on System z is clearly evident and the cost, performance and security proposition becomes compelling on the latest zEC12 and z13 Mainframe servers. The pervasive deployment of Java as a universal IT programming language dictates that programmer availability will never be an issue, and platform independence dictates that Java applications can be created and processed on any platform. Let’s not forget, the strong single thread performance and I/O scalability of System z as a significant differentiator when comparing Java performance on any IT platform.

Moreover, as always, perhaps the business dictates what platform is the most suitable for business applications. The evolution to a combined OLTP and batch workload for the 21st Century 24*7*365 mission critical business application, ideally places Java as an eminently viable programming language. Therefore there is no requirement to reengineer any existing System z application, or to find an alternative platform for new business functions. As always, the System z Mainframe platform should never be overlooked…

Along with the z13 hardware announcement were several very obvious WLC pricing announcements, but more importantly, two hidden Statements Of Direction (SOD) or pre-announcements.

I guess we can all remember the “zSeries Technology Dividend” where put simply, when upgrading zSeries servers, users would benefit from a ~10%+ software price versus performance benefit. Does anybody still remember the IBM Mainframe Charter from 2003? That was the document that first referenced this price/performance benefit, which became known as the “technology dividend”. Specifically, this document stated:

IBM lowered MSU values incorporated in the z990 microcode by approximately 10 percent, resulting in IBM software savings for IBM zSeries software products with MSU-based pricing. These reduced MSUs do not indicate a change in machine performance. Superior performance and technology within the z990 has allowed IBM to provide improved software prices for key IBM zSeries operating system and middleware software products.

Of course, when upgrading to the zEC12 or zBC12, further refinement of AWLC pricing was required, to deliver this the ~10% price/performance benefit. Hence, IBM introduced the AWLC Technology Transition Offerings (TTO), lowering AWLC prices for zXC12 and now z13 zSeries servers.

Technology Update Pricing for the IBM z13 (TU3): When stand-alone z13 servers are priced with AWLC, or when all the servers in an aggregated Sysplex or Complex are z13 servers priced with AWLC, these servers receive a reduction to AWLC pricing which is called. Quantity of z13 Full Capacity MSUs for a stand-alone server, or the sum of Full Capacity MSUs in an actively coupled Parallel Sysplex or Loosely Coupled Complex made up entirely of z13 servers. AWLC discounts range from 4% (4-45 MSU) to 14% (5477+ MSU).

AWLC Sysplex Transition Charges (TC2): When two or more machines exist in an aggregated Sysplex or Complex & at z13, zEC12, or zBC12 server & at least one is a z196 or z114 server, with no older technology machines included, they will receive a reduction to AWLC pricing across the aggregated Sysplex or Complex. This reduction provides a portion of the benefit related to the Technology Update Pricing for AWLC (TU1) based upon the proportion of zEC12 or zBC12 server capacity in the Sysplex or Complex. AWLC discounts range from 0.5% (0-20% z13/zXC12 MSU) to 4.5% (81%-<100% z13/zXC12 MSU).

AWLC Sysplex Transition Charges (TC3): When two or more machines exist in an aggregated Sysplex or Complex & at least one is a z13 server & at least one is a zEC12 or zBC12 server, with no older technology machines included, they will receive a reduction to AWLC pricing across the aggregated Sysplex or Complex. This reduction provides a portion of the benefit related to the IBM z13 TU3 offering, based on the total Full Capacity MSU of all z13, zEC12, & zBC12 Machines in the Sysplex or Complex. AWLC discounts range from 2.8% (4-45 MSU) to 9.8% (5477+ MSU).

These AWLC software pricing announcements are Business As Usual (BAU) and to be expected, but if we dig slightly deeper into the z13 announcements, we will find two other pre-announcements of interest!

Since introducing sub-capacity and WLC pricing regimes, IBM have continually evolved zSeries software sub-capacity pricing mechanisms, with zNALC, AWLC, IWP and more recently MWP offerings. From a generic viewpoint, with the exception of zNALC, a niche new workload price offering, these pricing announcements did not challenge the “status quo”, where aggregated MSU and large LPAR structures were the ideal. So why might the upcoming z13 (E.g. Q2 2015) pricing announcements be of note? Primarily because they challenge the notion of having separate structural entities (I.E. Sysplex Coupled zSeries Servers & LPARS) for existing and new workloads.

Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP): A major evolution, essentially eliminating prior Sysplex pricing rules, requiring that systems be interconnected and/or sharing the same data in order to be eligible for aggregation of MLC software pricing charges. A Multiplex is defined as the collection of all z Systems within a country. Therefore, sub-capacity usage will be measured & reported as a single machine, regardless of the connectivity or data sharing configurations. A new sub-capacity reporting tool is being implemented & clients should expect a transition period as the new pricing model is implemented. This should allow flexibility to move & run work anywhere, eradicating multiple workload peaks when workloads move between machines. Ultimately the cost of growth is reduced with one price per product based on MLC capacity growth anywhere in the country.CMP should facilitate for flexible deployment and movement of business workloads between all zSeries Servers located within a country, without impacting MLC billing. For the avoidance of doubt, this will assist the customer in safeguarding they don’t encounter duplicate MLC peaks as a result of moving an LPAR workload from one zSeries Server to another. It also removes all Sysplex aggregation considerations, Single Version Charging (SVC) time limits and Cross Systems Waivers (CSW). Most notably, the cost per MSU for additional capacity will be optimized, being based upon total Multiplex MSU capacity.

IBM Collocated Application Pricing (ICAP): Previously, new applications (zNALC) required a separate LPAR to avoid increases in other MLC software charges. ICAP facilitates new eligible applications be charged as if they are running in a dedicated environment. Technically they are integrated with other (non-eligible) workloads. Software supporting the new application will not impact the charges for other MLC software collocated in the same LPAR. ICAP appears as an evolution of the Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) for z/OS pricing mechanism. ICAP will use an enhanced MWRT, implemented as a z/OS application. ICAP applies to z13, zXC12, z196/z114 servers. IBM anticipates that ICAP will deliver zNALC type price benefit, discounting ~50% of ICAP eligible software MSU.

Seemingly IBM have learned from the lessons of IWP, where at first glance, software discounts were attractive, but not at the cost of a separate LPAR. From a reporting viewpoint, there are similarities to Mobile Workload Pricing for z/OS (MWP), but most notably, pricing is largely zNALC based. Therefore collocating new workloads in the same LPAR as existing workloads, but with the best price performance of any pricing regime, except zNALC, which is a niche and special edition software pricing metric.

In conclusion, CMP and ICAP are notable WLC pricing regime updates, because they do challenge the status quo of MSU aggregation via Sysplex coupled servers and the ability to collocate new and existing workloads in the same LPAR. On the one hand, simplified pricing considerations from a granular per MSU cost viewpoint. However, to optimize price versus performance, arguably the savvy Data Centre will now require a higher level of workload management, safeguarding optimum MSU capacity usage and associated performance.

zPrice Manager is an evolution of the typical soft-capping approach, which can be IBM function based, namely Defined Capacity (DC) or Group Capacity Limit (GCL), or ISV product based. ISV products typically allow MSU management with dynamic MSU capacity resource management between LPAR, LPAR Group & CPC structures, ideally with Workload Manager (WLM) interaction. If plug & play simple MSU management is required, these traditional IBM or 3rd party ISV approaches will still work with CMP and ICAP, but will they maximize WLC TCO?

The simple answer is no, because CMP allows the movement of workloads between zSeries Servers. Therefore if WLC product (I.E. z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS, WebSphere/MQ) pricing is to be country wide, and optimum WLM performance is to be maintained, a low level granularity of MSU management is required.

zPrice Manager from zIT Consulting allows this level of WLC software product management, with a High Level REXX programmatic interface, and the ability to store real life MSU profile data as callable REXX variables. Similar benefits apply to ICAP workloads, where different WLM policies might be required for the same WLC product, deployed on the same collocated workload LPAR. Therefore the savvy data centre will safeguard they optimize MSU TCO via MWP and/or ICAP pricing regimes, without impacting business application performance.

In conclusion, the typical z13 AWLC software pricing updates are Business As Usual (BAU) and can be implemented, as and when required and without consideration. Conversely, CMP and ICAP can deliver significant future benefit and should be considered in zSeries Server capacity planning forecasts.

Bottom Line Recommendation: Each and every zSeries Server user, whether large or small, should initiate contact with their IBM account teams, for CMP and ICAP briefings, allowing them to consider how they might benefit from these new WLC software pricing regimes.